← Back to context

Comment by RandomLensman

5 months ago

End of live would have come sooner or later anyway.

But why take the risk of fission reactors becoming targets in a war?

8 comments

RandomLensman

Reply
mpweiher  5 months ago

Later.

Reactors in the US, on which the German designs are based, have already received their extensions to 80 years.

Experts see no particular problems in extending that to 100 years or even further.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-long-can-a-nuclear-plan...

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...

Fission reactors are not very useful targets in war. In Ukraine, their fleet of nuclear reactors are what's keeping the electricity grid running. And they are building new ones. In war time.

pqtyw  5 months ago

Because presumably France for instance would likely view someone blowing up one of their plants the same way as a nuclear attack. Given their nuclear deterrence policies that would end up badly for both sides

  • RandomLensman  5 months ago

    Germany doesn't have a nuclear deterrence and in the event of a nuclear war still might want to avoid having particular bad targets. I'd rather put any new money for nuclear into fusion instead of building large fission reactors.

  • natmaka  5 months ago

    A nuclear plant may be hit by despair, even if it isn't the target, and in any case finding who hit it may be difficult. Right now in Ukraine...